About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
." this is a very old statute enacted by the first congress. it has sat dormant for 170 years. in some civil right type folks picked it up. -- been some civil right type folks picked it up and started bringing cases in which the plaintiff is foreign. the defendant is foreign. the tour took place in some foreign place. they say you have jurisdiction over this. courts have been going for this. they have been allowing some of these cases to go forward. this case raised the question of the of -- in this particular case, it took place in nigeria. the guy says the nigerian government committed these against me. they mistreated me. these foreign will company's work implicit -- foreign companies were implicit. so i am wanting to sue the oil companies in federal court. the defendant say this is not apply to corporations. he cannot actually sue a corporation under the statute. that was their claim. they did something very unusual. they actually said we want to consider a broader question. we would like you to brief not just this question of does it apply to corporations, but also doesn't apply extraterritor
win and my retort is if you look back over the years, from women's suffrage, civil rights, to more recently the alternative ener movement, have been borne from third parties garn hing enough votes away from the two major political parties so engrained in the status quo that they never impose the sweeping changes so i hope you can comment on the role of third parties not necessarily in winning elections but in changing the agenda to the point where we get the changes we end up treasuring over the next century. host: thank you for the call. dr. jill stein. guest: thank you for making that point, which is very important. in fact, what so many people call progress in this country, whether you talk about women getting the right to vote, the abbitionist slavery, the protection of workers in the workplace, the right to organize, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, social social security, the new deal, you name it, all of these have come out of independent third parties, because as you say, the party that is are bought and paid for by large corporations which are part of the status qu
the alien torched statute. -- alien tort statute. any civil action by agent alien's right toward the only committed and a violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the united states, this is an old statute enacted by the first congress which sat dormant for 170 years. then some civil-rights folks pick them up and they started bringing cases in which the plaintiff is foreign, the defendant is foreign, and report to a place in some foreign place. they come into in new york federal court and say you have jurisdiction over this and courts have been allowing some of these cases to go forward, strange as it sounds. this case raised the question -- this takes place in nigeria and the guy says he mistreated me, tortured me and so forth. these foreign oil companies were composite and help the nigerian company do this to me -- these companies work implicit. you can actually sue incorporation under this statute and that was their claim last year. the u.s. supreme court heard arguments in the case and did something very unusual -- they actually said to the parties we want to consider a broader q
to get ahead of things, the plaintiffs here are attorneys, civil rights activists and others who are in regular contact with people overseas particularly people who might well be the subject of electronic surveillance by the federal government and they are challenging the law that allows electronic surveillance, this wiretapping because they're concerned that their case will be picked up. they're claiming to have standing to challenge this law because even though the surveillance might be directed overseas to people they're talking to get their dedication will get picked up in the course of that surveillance and so therefore they have the right to challenge it in court. that is the standing issue we we are dealing with. just to get to the merits for a minute, and the aftermath of the exposÉ in the mid-70's about various abuses in the intelligence community and in short in short is set up a system by which the executive branch would have to go to the court surveillance court here in d.c. and get permission when they wanted to do wiretapping for national security purpose to give s
for the new term -- expected to be, civil rights. >>> plus kobe bryant, dropping a little insight on what it's like to play pick-up with the president. when you take a closer look... ...at the best schools in the world... ...you see they all have something very interesting in common. they have teachers... ...with a deeper knowledge of their subjects. as a result, their students achieve at a higher level. let's develop more stars in education. let's invest in our teachers... ...so they can inspire our students. let's solve this. my brother doesn't look like a heart attack patient. i'm on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. i'm a fighter and now i don't have that fear. i'm a fighter you're not just looking for a by house. eyes you're looking for a place for your life to happen. want my recipe for healthier hair color? natural instincts! formulated with aloe, vitamin and antioxidants natural instincts has a system that's a healthier way to radiant color. indulge... with natural instincts. less guilt, more gorgeous. bori
enacted by the first congress. but it sat dormant for 170 odd years. then some civil rights type folks picked it up and human rights type folks and started bringing cases in which the plaintiff is foreign, the defendant is foreign, and the tort took place in some foreign place and they are bringing it to u.s. courts. so a paraguayan plaintiff and a pair of wayne defendant and it took place in her way. so the ticket to a u.s. -- a paraguayan plaintiff and a paraguayan defendant and it took place in paraguay. so they take it to the u.s. in this particular case, k iobal takes place in nigeria. and the nigerian government mistreated me, torture and so forth and these will companies, foreign oil companies, were complice it, helping the nigerian government do this to me. so i am wanting to sue the oil companies in federal court. and the oil companies defendants say that this does not apply to corporations. you cannot sue a corporation under this statute. that was their claim last year at the supreme court and the u.s. supreme court heard arguments in the case and did something very unusual.
these cases can be so big they can be exported. civil-rights concerned about cutting back on class-action. too expensive to litigate each case one by one. the justices in the comcast case will consider the question of how much judges should decide about the case before certifying and saying everyone can be in all the lawsuits together. do they have to figure route if all these people and have one theory of damages or have to look at whether there was a fraud or securities fraud case so there will be more in line of the wal-mart decision about class-action procedure? two tiny actions. people in college try to get text books that are not incredibly expensive. the supreme court has a copyright case about what happens with market goods. text books made overseas when sold at a lower price are imported to the united states. producer of that book or any other copyrighted material have a right to limit it coming into the united states and actually a body on the questions of when a lawsuit is moved. a very lawyer the the the the issue but those who are interested and are practicing lawyers there are fi
to debunk a false -- debunk false claims. i think "the weekly standard" would agree. when we look at civil rights, it should be not about the quality of results. -- it might reflect that there is a republican primary going on, or it might reflect the fact that they are feeling the same journalistic standards. -- they are failing the same journalistic standards. i think this varies over time. that is just a false logic. i do not know that it is 3 to 1, and i do not know the time you're talking about. some of that is republicans criticizing other republicans. it is certainly not three to one on our side. other questions? we have two here, if we can get the microphone over to the table in front of the cameras. i am keeping her hopping here. >> i am michael, and given what we have just heard about people choosing to believe their side or their candidate or their team of people that believe they are objective journalists, and i count myself among them, and i do not believe that many voters believe that being a liar is a disqualifying traits. what are you guys seeing? what can happen on the grou
of principles that we agree with with pakistan on afghanistan. i think neither of us want to see the civil war. we should find that basis. the question people are struggling with right now with the right mechanism in the bilateral relationship, but the right mechanism to pull people together to find those things we have in common. anyone in the last month or six weeks there've been developments i'm not privy to but i sense i'm moving ahead. per your question is a good one. we don't have, to my knowledge, we have not achieved the kind of meeting of minds on afghanistan that were going to need for this process up to 2014 and beyond 2014 to address. so it is an open question i agree if there is a tough one, that is the. i'm an independent consultant and i have a couple of questions that pick up on other points that i believe you made. if i understood you correctly, you really suggesting that we start our relations when people share our values. i'm sympathetic to that idea. i wanted first to make a comment, which many of those people in some sense identified with our values or goals are at least s
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)